"Entitlement Reform"

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

I don't care much for the term "Entitlement Reform" because it is too frequently associated with welfare. And in some sense it is "Welfare" because the so-called Trust Fund is existent only in the mind of Washington bureaucrats. That money has been spent! SS and Mediscare are indeed Ponzi Schemes.

Some months ago I contacted my Congressional Delegation via Congress.Org and who knows where my letters went, I suppose the delete key. Nevertheless I did present my ideas for measures I believe must be taken if Mediscare and Social Security continue to exist. I really cannot comment on Medicaid simply because I don't know enough about it!

First: The age for receiving Social Security and Mediscare must be increased starting immediately. I would suggest increasing the age at which these benefits could be received to 70 over a period of 10 years.

Second: Means testing must be implemented in both these programs. I understand that these people have contributed to the Social Security and Mediscare programs but????

*******Any single person with an income exclusive of SS of $100,000 or more should be denied Social Security and Mediscare I would include provision for Mediscare in event of catastrophic illness. I understand that it is more expensive to live in Yankeeland than other places except possibly California but folks can move. We have far more carpet baggers {thems Yankees} down here now than during reconstruction!

*******Any couple with an income exclusive of SS of $125,000 or more should be denied Social Security and Mediscare. Again provision should be made for catastrophic illness.

The income mention above is substantially less than in my "deleted" communication to my Congressional delegation but they provide a basis for discussion. I would appreciate everyones thoughts on the above suggestions. It is a fact that something must be done. It is also a fact that Obama and the democrats want to postpone discussion of "Entitlements" until after the Republicans agree to raise taxes.

When it came to dealing with the Soviet Union Reagan's policy was "Trust but verify". Sadly he did not use the same policy with democrats who promised a 3 for 1 cut in spending for a tax hike. Same thing happened to "Read my lips" George H. W. Bush. So hopefully before republicans agree to any increase in tax revenue it will be tied irrevocably to "Entitlement Reform".

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

I don't like the term "entitlement" because it always refers to government help/benefits for working and poor people but never refers to government help/benefits for rich people.

Click to expand...

That is nonsense. The term "Entitlement" applies to monies received from the government by rich or poor or middle income. I am simply saying that in order to save SS and Mediscare for those who need it the well off and rich can pay their own way.

Why not say something positive about "Entitlement Reform" unless you are one of the naive who think it can go on forever.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

India is a place with no social safety net. Poor parents cannot get their children into schools. Families sleep in ditches outside of new car dealerships.

Americans will never tolerate that. That is one reason I am skeptical of talk from politicians about "entitlements", and "welfare reform".

Secondly, unemployment is a part of the system, and cannot be done away with, to as great an extent as many would want. The same politicians who talk to voters about halting the movement of dollars from their pockets and into welfare checks, actually know this. They're just talking. In 1996, there was a labor shortage, unemployment was so low. How did the head of the Federal Reserve feel about this good news? Alan Greenspan stated that he wanted unemploymet to rise, because the low level of it would lead to inflation. How? Workers would get cocky and demand more money, and employers would have to practically bid against each other to attract the best workers.

I once read a statement made by the head of America's Chamber of Commerce, who stated that a society with NO unemployment was not to be desired, as it would lead to too much class consciousness. Interpretation: workers who are cocky.

So. Beware politicians claiming they will put money into your pockets, by clamping down on cheaters and loafers.

It's really funny to see Republicans add fuel to the fire they claim to want to put out. Reagan talked about "young bucks" who got welfare and didn't work. Then, he and his fellows made America a place in which no responsible person with foresight would dare bring children into the world. Where to put them? Who cares for them when mama works? Just having one leads to financial ruin, in the form of medical bills. Daddy gets fired for taking time off to run one to the doctor (I know a company that does just that.) The Swedes and Northern Europeans care about their people, and have a safety net and pro-family programs. Americans just wish for a return to "Little Home on the Prarie" days.

Afterall, the shiftless among us, by definition, are not going to get busy with constructive activity and stop producing large numbers of offspring. As we won't go the way of India and in effect starve them out, by ending every and all social programs, cutting social programs as we have since 1968, say, has had the unexpected effect of leading constructive, responsible, citizens to limit their numbers of children. This is the irony of our times.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

India is a place with no social safety net. Poor parents cannot get their children into schools. Families sleep in ditches outside of new car dealerships.

Americans will never tolerate that. That is one reason I am skeptical of talk from politicians about "entitlements", and "welfare reform".

Click to expand...

One has nothing to do with the other.

Secondly, unemployment is a part of the system, and cannot be done away with, to as great an extent as many would want. The same politicians who talk to voters about halting the movement of dollars from their pockets and into welfare checks, actually know this. They're just talking.

Click to expand...

Again one has nothing to do with the other.

I once read a statement made by the head of America's Chamber of Commerce, who stated that a society with NO unemployment was not to be desired, as it would lead to too much class consciousness. Interpretation: workers who are cocky.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

It's really funny to see Republicans add fuel to the fire they claim to want to put out. Reagan talked about "young bucks" who got welfare and didn't work. Then, he and his fellows made America a place in which no responsible person with foresight would dare bring children into the world.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

I agree and my opening remarks in the OP indicate that. However, it has become an entitlement because there is no "Trust Fund". SS and Mediscare were stupid programs from inception and have gotten worse with time.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Neither is it an insurance contract or any other kind of contract. What shall we call it?

Click to expand...

Actually it is a contract of sorts. Although very few people alive today were alive when it was first drawn up. The tacit agreement that people would work and pay into the SS pot and when it came time to retire they would get their money back implies a contract. We can see that in court cases where verbal and/or implied agreements have been enforced. What makes SS different than an entitlement is the people are personally invested into it whereas entitlements are more like welfare (read: overt wealth distribution) and the recipients are not required to be invested into it. Granted that SS is a more subtle form of wealth redistribution (you can argue over how covert or overt it is I guess, but that depends on how informed the worker is on the issue).

Regardless, the country is broke. We cannot have this debt load and say we were not broke. It's time to put every part of the "entitlement" argument on the table and see what can be cut, trimmed, and outright thrown away. Only those with a proven need should get help. It would be nice if we could apply the principals of 1 Tim 5 concerning widows to a national budget.

All foreign aid must stop. We need an amendment to drop the IRS and current tax code and enact a 15% flat tax on each and every income earner....no loopholes....no deductions....one page annual filing...no excuses.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

I once read a statement made by the head of America's Chamber of Commerce, who stated that a society with NO unemployment was not to be desired, as it would lead to too much class consciousness. Interpretation: workers who are cocky.

Click to expand...

You and I know that "entitlements" are not always the same as, "food stamps" , "AFDC", etc. But, when politicians speak of them to prospective voters, they have the same intent; to portray members of the opposite political party as near thieves, who help the lazy.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

In the 1980's, Ronald Reagan got elected by talking about "welfare queens" and "Young bucks". That last phrase he reserved for use in The South, leading some to say he appealed to latent racism. Maybe . .

Flash forward almost 30 years, and politicians can no longer play that kind of card as much, so they use the term "entitlements", which are indeed often different from flat out welfare. But, the impulse is the same: scapegoat the poor and vulnerable, while giving free reign to the wealthy.

What is the irony I see? Because of demographics, a Republican has a tough time getting elected nowadays. Irony? Poetic justice?

America has become a bit of an anti-family society, in large part because family and workplace are at odds (because business has no time for such things, so don't just blame the "gays and feminists") Many Americans commit "genetic suicide" as Pat Robertson told us. Ben Wattenberg called it the "Birth Dearth" and wrote a book by that title. A very recent book by another is:

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

In the 1980's, Ronald Reagan got elected by talking about "welfare queens" and "Young bucks". That last phrase he reserved for use in The South, leading some to say he appealed to latent racism. Maybe . .

Flash forward almost 30 years, and politicians can no longer play that kind of card as much, so they use the term "entitlements", which are indeed often different from flat out welfare. But, the impulse is the same: scapegoat the poor and vulnerable, while giving free reign to the wealthy.

What is the irony I see? Because of demographics, a Republican has a tough time getting elected nowadays. Irony? Poetic justice?

America has become a bit of an anti-family society, in large part because family and workplace are at odds (because business has no time for such things, so don't just blame the "gays and feminists") Many Americans commit "genetic suicide" as Pat Robertson told us. Ben Wattenberg called it the "Birth Dirth" and wrote a book on the subject.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

You and I know that "entitlements" are not always the same as, "food stamps" , "AFDC", etc. But, when politicians speak of them to prospective voters, they have the same intent; to portray members of the opposite political party as near thieves, who help the lazy.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

In the 1980's, Ronald Reagan got elected by talking about "welfare queens" and "Young bucks". That last phrase he reserved for use in The South, leading some to say he appealed to latent racism. Maybe . .

America has become a bit of an anti-family society, in large part because family and workplace are at odds (because business has no time for such things, so don't just blame the "gays and feminists") Many Americans commit "genetic suicide" as Pat Robertson told us. Ben Wattenberg called it the "Birth Dearth" and wrote a book by that title.

Not enough little Republicans being born.

Click to expand...

It ia the abortion celebrating democrats who are anti-family! It is the homosexual celebrating democrats who are anti family!

ExpandCollapse

New Member

I think entitlement reform, or an upgrade for our entitlement programs is important. People are living longer these days, and medical costs are higher. As a result not enough money has been paid into Medicaid to support the system as is. Additionally Social Security is now paying out more money than it is taking in. This is a situation that can not last for long.

Economist Lawrence Kudlow had a mention this morning too about how credit rating agencies are looking for an upgrade to our entitlement programs. With out this, we can expect another credit down grade raising our borrowing costs.

"GOP Shouldn't Sign Any Deal That Doesn't Include Spending Cuts"

from his article:

...Another key point: Mr. Obama never mentioned spending cuts. Never. Not once. Yet Boehner has argued that the Republican revenue concession depends on some entitlement cuts as well as other spending reductions that would make up the trillion dollars or so in the across-the-board sequestration plan that appears to have been junked by both parties.
Even the Washington Post is criticizing Obama for failing to deliver a specific plan regarding entitlement and non-entitlement spending cuts. And Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has added that taxing rich people will not overcome the gargantuan entitlement deficit, which some estimate to be $68 trillion over the decades ahead.
Unfortunately, Durbin wants to put off entitlement changesuntil 2013. Why does everybody want to put spending cuts off until next year? It doesn't work. It won't persuade the financial markets or the credit-rating agencies. Small, money-saving entitlement reforms, like cost-of-living adjustments and raising the eligibility age, would be a useful down-payment within this year's fiscal-cliff deficit deal.
And herein resides the GOP leverage. Republicans should not sign a tax deal that doesn't have a sizable spending component.
And they should argue that a smaller spending share of gross domestic product is actually a tax cut stimulant for the economy, and that it would give confidence to the business and financial worlds as well as the rating agencies that Washington is on the right track....

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!